New Fashion Board 10-3-2003 - 11-7-2003

[Jack Manfred]

I have a question about pleats in pants. Yes, I know that pleated pants have fallen out of fashion in a NASDAQesque drop. But I have an observation. At the beginning of the 90's, I worked in a department store. Most trousers were pleated, and the only customers who bought plain-front pants were men over 50. To be exact, the only customers who bought them were the wives of men over 50. Those men didn't actually shop for clothes.

Now, 10 or so years later, flat-front pants (good marketing, no one wants plain anything) are sleek and stylish. Pleated pants have a reputation for drawing attention to the middle area of a man's body and making him look dowdy. I seem to recall a dozen years ago, we told men that pleats were slimming.

What gives? I have a few theories, hopefully the fashionistas can agree on one of them.

1) It's all marketing/fashion. Men tend to buy pants only when they gain/lose weight. In order to get men to buy more, retailers need to convince men that they need an entirely new wardrobe.

2) We're being lied to now. Plain-front/Flat-front pants will be the acid-washed jeans of the early millenum, and one day tastemakers will wake up, shake off the fog of the decade's activities, and shudder at the thought of wearing pants without a pleat.

3) We were being lied to then. Pleated pants were always a bad idea, never looked good on any man, and we should pray they die a certain death.

4) Plain-front pants are cut differently than they used to be, so you can't compare today's pants with yesterday's pants. Today's pants are objectively more flattering.

5) It's all body-type dependent. Some men look good with pleats, others sans. Men should find out which is the case for them and dress accordingly, heedless of fashion. Pleats only exascerbate a dowdy look if their wearer is trying to squeeze into too small a size, and flat-fronts don't objectively look better on all men.

Is the correct answer one (or more) of the above? Is BRC the only one who can resolve such a Gordian knot of a problem with one slash of her rapier wit?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I assume that, based on your personal experience that you're working backwards?

TM

Oh goodie. Now we can look forward to a tale of languishing in the hospital losing weight and commentary on how offensive it is of you to mock the ill. Even though you weren't. I just love these tales; I find them sexy. Be still my heart.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I find this stressful for various reasons. I like the inevitability of a couple bottles showing up every month.

are you my sister? If you are, you liked the cheese of the month club, and they have a wine of the month club too.

Problem with these clubs: if you like the wine, you may not be able to find it in stores. If you buy at your local store, they usually have (or can get) more.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
are you my sister? If you are, you liked the cheese of the month club, and they have a wine of the month club too.

Problem with these clubs: if you like the wine, you may not be able to find it in stores. If you buy at your local store, they usually have (or can get) more.

If I am your sister, I suggest you make an arrangement with my local wine merchant to send me a couple bottles a month. It would make an excellent holiday gift.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Jack Manfred
5) It's all body-type dependent. Some men look good with pleats, others sans. Men should find out which is the case for them and dress accordingly, heedless of fashion. Pleats only exascerbate a dowdy look if their wearer is trying to squeeze into too small a size, and flat-fronts don't objectively look better on all men.

I say it's this one. In the early 90s, men, while heavy, weren't fat, so there was some hope that pleats could slim. Now they're so fat that pleats just bulge (especially since they're buying the same size pants). So flat is in.

Or the marketing one. Like three-button jackets.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In the early 90s, men, while heavy, weren't fat . . . [n]ow they're so fat that pleats just bulge (especially since they're buying the same size pants)

Holy shit, the whole country? I must be hallucinating the actual fat people I remember from as far back as the 80s. Or they've put a chip in my brain to alter my memories.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Or the marketing one. Like three-button jackets.

I thought the 2-button jacket was a 30-year fad started by JKF and that 3-button was the norm?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I say it's this one. In the early 90s, men, while heavy, weren't fat, so there was some hope that pleats could slim. Now they're so fat that pleats just bulge (especially since they're buying the same size pants). So flat is in.

Or the marketing one. Like three-button jackets.

Wrong: That man is fat.

Right: That man is a fat.

Carry on.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I thought the 2-button jacket was a 30-year fad started by JKF and that 3-button was the norm?

Yes, or at least 3 buttons are more traditional than 2 buttons. Not sure about the JFK attribution, I think it was a bit earlier, but 2 buttons are defintely a post WWII thing on regular suits.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
We* are prohitibed from buying wine by mail in TX or I would have made an immediate internet purchase.

*this is actually appropriate here.

Not anymore!! Fifth Circuit struck it down in Dickerson v. Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission as interfering with the commerce clause.

We (the DD and I, not the DP, because she's never been to Napa) are pleased we no longer have to sign petitions in Napa.

Edited to add: Scroll, then post. Scroll, then post. I also note that neither the DD nor the DP had anything to do with my inability to catch up before posting. Though the DP did make me late for work this morning so we can blame her for something.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
I called there and they dont have any of the Jenna Loves series and dont have listing by star bc they are more "interested in plot and the chemistry between the partners". (eyeroll). If I order from them, and I need their catalogue, am I gonna get Skinemax stuff or hardcore?

Looks like I have to go to the porn store tongiht and rent bc that Veronika chick kinda turned me on.

In my experience, stuff from goodvibes is hardcore. Just don't get anything they produced themselves.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Jack Manfred
I have a question about pleats in pants.

I think it is all marketing, combining in new and interesting ways with (i) the fact that about 70-80% of all American men buy their trousers too tight in the waist and (ii) the fact that men are increasingly being marketed to directly as vanity consumers.

Either pleated or plain-front trousers will look fine on just about any figure - IF THEY FIT PROPERLY. Obviously, that is a big "IF". If the trou are properly fitted, the real question is how the wearer wants them to drape - which depends on fabric, cut of the leg, etc., in addition to how the wearer moves.

I think the current fashion for flat fronts is really driven by the greater interest in mens clothing as "fashion," and therefore something widely shown on svelt beautiful people rather than something your father wears. Given that men are incapable of wearing the right size without serious intervention, we must assume that our prospective pant-wearer is going to get trousers too small. On fit, skinny people, flat-fronts look better when worn too small, because pleats worn too tight do that "flare out" thing. Men see this in ads, and they think that this is the more flattering way to go. (On fatter people, the pleated trousers flaring out in the front are counterballanced by the fact that they don't pull as much in the back - something your fathers might remember.)

It seems to me that the general fattening of America will lead to a pleating backlash, but who knows - American men may prove as susceptible to marketing as the women who think size 16 spandex is fashionable because the stick-figure model looks so good in it.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Yes, or at least 3 buttons are more traditional than 2 buttons. Not sure about the JFK attribution, I think it was a bit earlier, but 2 buttons are defintely a post WWII thing on regular suits.

True, but the traditional 3 button suit (as worn by, say, Dean Acheson in 1951) is not the same 3 button suit as worn by you* young hipsters today.

Secretary Acheson's suit had a third button, but it didn't have those ridiculous high lapels that make today's 3 button suits look so silly. (Speaking of silly, thankfully I have yet to see a lawyer in one of those Michael Irvin-esque 4 button suits.)

* uh, not you B_R_C -- though given the Marlene Dietrich vibe you had when you discussed menswear for women, I bet that one of them 3 button suits would work for you.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
the fact that about 70-80% of all American men buy their trousers too tight in the waist and (

How much larger should trouser waist size be than FB Man waist size?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Not Bob
True, but the traditional 3 button suit (as worn by, say, Dean Acheson in 1951) is not the same 3 button suit as worn by you* young hipsters today.

Secretary Acheson's suit had a third button, but it didn't have those ridiculous high lapels that make today's 3 button suits look so silly. (Speaking of silly, thankfully I have yet to see a lawyer in one of those Michael Irvin-esque 4 button suits.)

The Rat Pack suits don't look that much different than today's suits, do they?